site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11hr ago (text post)   1779 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 23, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Recently I read that a well respected football coach -- Bill Belichick -- was denied admission to the Football hall of fame based on the fact that he is in a romantic relationship with a woman who is much younger than him.

Pump the breaks. This is not the reason why he was denied his first attempt at the HOF.

First off, first ballot HOF isn't exactly rare, but it's a big deal. A lot of players get a non-negligible number of votes their first year of eligibility and then the next year, or even several years after, actually make it across the threshold. Belichicks' NFL career was, quantitatively and statistically, incredible. But he had some black marks against him. The Patriots had numerous credible accusations of cheating during the Brady-Belichick era. Furthermore, Belichick is a notorious asshole on a personal level. So much so that Tom Brady, starting last year, began granting open interviews where he states "Yeah, the coach I won six superbowls with actually was such a boner at the end I decided to GTFO."

At another level of analysis, some NFL fans - including me - aren't convinced Belichick was the mastermind coaching genius he gets credit for. The theory goes that Brady was really the "X factor" for the Patriots dynasty. The major piece of evidence in favor of this is that a 40+ year old Brady leaves the Patriots and then quickly wins the Superbowl with Tampa Bay against Patrick Mahomes in his prime.

All of that is aside the primary point imho - Belichick is an asshole and has been since long before he started dating the FemmeBot. In the NFL, the group of coaches who hang around for more than ten years is fucking tiny. They all know each other, they all know the owners (who are heavily involved in the HoF process). It is a High School popularity contest and people remember that one time 9 years ago when you were a dick to them at the party.

Having read the list of "women, the harpies, want to keep the good men for themselves when we all know that women are peak attractive at 16 and once they go past 20 they're ugly crones" responses, thank you for at least examining what our friend with the "I'm middle-aged and my girlfriend is still too young to drink legally even where drinking age is 18" posting asserted as TRUE! REAL! FAX!

I read him as saying he was in his forties and dating a 20 something woman, not a teenager.

I don't understand what you are saying.

EDIT: nvm. You're a weird troll who is seconds away from another permaban. Sorry for misunderstanding.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats